Blankenship v. Stewart et al
Filing
7
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not issue a screening order in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LORRIE E. STEWART et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
13
I.
7
8
9
10
11
ALBERT BLANKENSHIP,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01019-RFB-VCF
ORDER
DISCUSSION
14
Plaintiff is a former prisoner of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). (ECF
15
No. 1 at 7). On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, initiated this case by filing a
16
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has paid the full
17
filing fee in this matter. (See ECF No. 1).
18
The general rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is that “[t]he court shall review . . . a
19
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from the governmental entity or
20
officer or employee of a governmental entity” and “shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss
21
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint” if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
22
claim upon which relief can be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
23
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
24
Section 1915A does not expressly differentiate between represented and
25
unrepresented prisoner cases with regard to screening, and there is no authority addressing
26
this issue. This Court typically does not screen § 1983 prisoner cases where the Plaintiff is
27
represented by counsel. For one thing, the pleading obligations of an attorney under Fed. R.
28
Civ. P. 11 tend to substantially reduce the incidence of claims that are frivolous or otherwise
patently noncognizable on their face. Pro se litigants are not attorneys and should not be
1
expected to know how to draft pleadings as if they were. Judicial screening of prisoner
2
complaints serves to prevent prisoner complaints which are truly difficult, if not impossible to
3
understand, from being served upon defendants. Screening of represented cases to decipher
4
the allegations and claims is usually unnecessary. See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d
5
903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the “purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets
6
of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding”); O’Neal v. Price, 531
7
F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the PLRA’s screening provision was intended
8
to “conserve judicial resources by authorizing district courts to dismiss nonmeritorious prisoner
9
complaints at an early stage”). As such, the Court will not screen this counseled prisoner
10
case. This case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules
11
of Civil Procedure.
12
II.
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not issue a screening
order in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track
as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13th
DATED: This _____ day of April, 2017.
19
20
_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?